Aguila Blanca
Staff
I thought both the local PD and the local prosecutor had officially stood down from the case.MLeake said:Local PD and prosecutor have been partially bypassed.
I thought both the local PD and the local prosecutor had officially stood down from the case.MLeake said:Local PD and prosecutor have been partially bypassed.
fiddletown, I really hope you have that saved as a document somewhere. It's long, but it's a very good explanation. I get the impression you've posted that before.fiddletown said:Sigh! . . . .
I. How Pleading Self Defense Works . . . .
....Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”
To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.
Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.
“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”
...[Mary}Cutcher originally gave police a statement that matched Zimmerman’s account, said police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern....
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself
III. The Bottom Line
Every Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law has conditions, in general similar to those under the Florida statute, that you will need to show have been satisfied in order to be protected under those laws.
I think Uncle Billy and I are the only ones so far who have addressed the article.Glenn E. Meyer Let's keep this one to the legal decision of what behaviors the law allows and not go off on the media, etc.
Thanks.
[1] Just to be clear, the Florida law does not create a presumption that use of lethal force was justified merely because of unlawful entry.TheKlawMan said:I am not going to comment on the Martin shooting, since I know little or nothing about it, but I was aware of the Florida statute re The Castle Doctrine prior to the Martin shooting and had commented on the perceived problems with the statute....The sum and substance of my review was that the Florida statute gives rise to the presumption that a shooting was justifiable merely from the fact that a dwelling or a vehicle was unlawfully entered...
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred....
No reason it should. The general rule today is that a presumption is rebuttable. For a presumption to be conclusive, a statute or court decision would need to specifically and explicitly so provide.TheKlawMan said:...What really griped me about Florida's statute was its failure to provide whether the presumption was rebuttable or irrebuttable...
The point is not California law or Florida law. The point is that this presumption, which seems to trouble you so much, is not unusual. It is a standard feature of Castle Doctrine and similar statutes.TheKlawMan said:Thank you for the lesson on California law. ...Not much since the issue at bar is Florida law...
Well, I don't have trial experience. But, your sarcasm aside, I still seem to understand presumptions better than you. Until I pointed it out, you apparently weren't aware that presumptions were in fact generally rebuttable. And of course, how easy a presumption is to rebut in a particular case will depend on the exact circumstances and evidence available.TheKlawMan said:...Obvioulsly you have a good deal of trial experience and are well aware of how easy it is to refute the presumption beyond a reasonable doubt...
TheKlawMan said:...I tend to agree with that train of thought and believe that a shooter should be presumed to have feared imminent peril, as long as the presumption is rebuttable...
I guess it doesn't take a trial lawyer to have a general knowledge of the subject. In any case, as I've posted before, I practiced law for over 30 years before retiring at the age of 59. For almost 15 years leading up to my retirement, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. During my varied career by responsibilities included managing and controlling complex litigation and making tactical decisions with trial counsel.TheKlawMan said:Why am I not surpised that you have no trial experience...
So I guess you don't like Castle Doctrines as have been adopted in quite a few States now.TheKlawMan said:...Am I happy with the presumption in the Florida statute? The more I think of it, I just don't lilke it although I can't quite put together what bothers me so much about it...
An excellent point, and it kind of got lost. Here's the Florida version, 776.041:KyJim said:As I was glancing through the thread, I kept looking for mention of the "initial aggressor" limitation to the right of self-defense and its interplay with the "no duty to retreat" doctrine....
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I agree.KyJim said:...The initial aggressor limitation essentially takes away the right to use self-defense and make the no duty to retreat doctrine moot if the suspect/defendant is the initial aggressor....